54 Ark. 444 | Ark. | 1891
The plaintiff brought action to recover a balance claimed to be due him on a note given for rent of a farm, and sued out an attachment in pursuance of the provision of the statute relating to landlord’s liens. The defendant answered, admitting the execution of the note and alleging that it had been paid.
As the action was for rent due on a note, no recovery could have been asked on an account for supplies ; for this reason, if no other, plaintiff’s first and third prayers were properly refused. Upon the facts of the case, as above stated, the charge given by the court was proper.
As the testimony offered by the plaintiff and excluded by the court related to a claim not in issue, it was incompetent and inadmissible.
There was no error prejudical to plaintiff, and the judgment will be affirmed.